The Discovery Institute is 'monkeying' around with a new survey

We've discussed this penchant for surveys by the Discovery Institute (DI) before (here and here).  If you remember, my issue was how they like to poll with very innocuous sounding phrases and then spin the results and claim it shows some sort of support for one position or another.  Most often it's to denigrate science and science education and this poll is a perfect example!  "Scientists Versus the Public on Airing Scientific Dissent", by little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.

This time around, the DI presented a series of statements and asked some group of people through Survey Monkey to rate them on a 4-level scale,  'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree', or 'strongly disagree' with the statement.  Here are the statements from their latest poll (source):

1. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. Scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.
3. Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society.
4. It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.
5. People can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being ‘antiscience.’
6. Disagreeing with the current majority view in science can be an important step in the development of new insights and discoveries in science.

Now while the wording seems pretty basic, what do these phrases imply?  Here is how I see it:

1. That teachers and students do not currently have the freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. That scientists do not have the freedom to raise scientific criticisms of evolution.
3. That holding a dissenting view results in censorship and punishment.
4. The policymakers and the public do not hear dissenting views.
5. Anyone who holds a disagreement are labeled as 'anti-science'.
6. The since dissenting views are not allowed, there haven't been any new insights of new discoveries in science.

Now, you might think I am reading these implications into the survey; however, if that weren't true then this latest post from the DI, also by klingy, would never been written.  "Evolution's Enforcers Are Waaaaay Out of Step with Public Opinion".  Klingy is confirming that according to the DI, there is no freedom to discuss, dissent, or hold opposing views.

So the real question is not whether or not you agree with the DI's statements, but whether or not the implications of their statements reflect reality.  What do you think?

First of all students and teachers discuss scientific criticism of any scientific theory, including evolution, all the time.  The key here is scientific criticism.  Granted high school science classes might not have the time, nor resources, to spend a great deal of time on scientific criticisms, they still have the academic freedom to do so.

In fact, have you heard of a single person being censored or punished for discussing scientific criticisms?  Not at any public or secular schools!  The DI likes to trot out a list of people, like Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Crocker, and Richard Sternberg.  But anyone who examines those cases soon realizes that these folks weren't dealing with scientific criticisms, just run-of-the-mill religious criticisms dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat.  Their religion either prevented them from doing their job, or interfered with them doing their job, in any event they were held accountable . . . not for their beliefs, but not doing their job!  Unlike the DI's rogues gallery, there have been quite a few cases of teachers being punished and censored from teaching real science! Chris Comer and Tom Oord's situations come to immediate mind.

Now I have another name I wanted to mention, one I have discussed on numerous occasions, William Dembski.  If you recall Dembski figured in a number of  . . . incidents  . . . centered around his support of ID and Creationism.  One of the ones I mentioned a while ago was how quickly Wild Bill changed his tune about the reality of Noah's Flood.  Here is the write-up in Wikipedia (I added the underlines):

"While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth.  He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East.  This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal.  In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood."  Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said." (Wikipedia: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy)

Now the reason I want to remind you of that is because just a couple of days ago the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reported this: "Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind".  In it they quote Dembski about that particular controversy:

"this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness."

Interesting turn of phrase, Theological Correctness.  So while we have a certain amount of imagined censorship and punishment for dissent of current science on the part of the DI, and yet when we find actual censorship and punishment we find even people who are ID supporters who have to toe a fundamentalist line or find themselves unemployed because they were not fundie enough!  So which side is actually guilty of censorship and punishment for dissenting views?  Certainly doesn't look like it's science, does it?


Back to the survey statements themselves.  It's obvious that they are designed (pun intended) to make you think such freedom to discuss, criticize, or dissent doesn't exist, but once you remember the whole purpose in life of the DI you can see why they want you to think so.  In the past, when has the DI ever been an advocate of academic freedom?  Look at the text and purpose of their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bills.  The purpose of such bills, which have been defeated is all but two states that have tried to pass one, is to weaken science education and allow their religion (Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID)) to wedge its way into the curriculum.  That's not made up . . that is their stated goal!

Barbra Forrest, you might remember her from the Dover Trial, just yesterday (July 7, 2016) had this to say about one of those bills:

" . . . the deceptively titled “Louisiana Science Education Act” was promoted exclusively by the Louisiana Family Forum, a right-wing religious lobbying group that has promoted creationism since its founding, and the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design creationist think tank in Seattle. The law is an attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which nullified a 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism in public schools."("Letters: Here are the facts on La.’s Science Education Act")

Simple question, if a car mechanic refused to actually repair cars, should the garage who hired them keep them on the payroll?  Again, that's what the DI wants.  They hate the fact that people like Gonzales and Crocker were held accountable for their actions because they were failing in the job they were hired to do!  The list of all the supposed 'victims' of censorship and discrimination that the DI likes to wave around can all be traced back to their unwillingness or inability to do their job! That's not censorship or discrimination!  How much would car repairs cost of you had to help pay the salaries of people who 'worked' at the garage but who didn't perform any duties that fall under the heading of work?

I do like how they changed things after the second survey statement.  Did you notice how they dropped the word 'scientific'?  Just as an exercise, tuck it back in and see how it changes the meaning of the sentence.  Scientists who hold dissenting 'scientific' views should not be censored or punished . . . now have you noticed that at no time does the DI identify anyone who has been censored or punished for holding a dissenting scientific view?  So in their words, a dissenting view, regardless of its scientific viability, is just as important as a non-dissenting view.  So Astrology is an viable as Astronomy, Chemistry to Alchemy,  . . . you see where such a list can end.  Next thing you know we will be requiring our Math teachers to teach Numerology and Architects to cover Feng Shui.

People disagree with science all the time.  It's not the disagreement that makes someone like Jenny McCarthy 'anti-science', it's the snake oil she's peddling in its place that is anti-science.  There is no evidence that supports vaccines cause autism, none!  Jenny is anti-science!  The DI is anti-science, not because they disagree with science, but because they want to put their religion in its place.  Look at the tactics of people like McCarthy and the DI.  They don't promote their own ideas as much as they attack actual science with nothing but marketing, unsupported ideas, and lots of politicking.  Yes, they are anti-science not because they disagree, but because how what they do and say in what they are offering in its place.

For example my daughter is questioning the need for my granddaughter to receive the HPV vaccine.  She is questioning based on several specific things, like how the vaccine only protects from a small set of viruses, and not the more common ones and how HPV and the related cancers do not run in either side of my granddaughter's family tree.  What she isn't doing is raising irresponsible and outright lies about vaccines in general, but she has some specific concerns.  It doesn't make her anti-science, what it does do is make her cautious and wants to discuss it further with a actual medical professional before making a decision.  The applicable label isn't 'anti-science', but 'parent'.

The final statement of theirs is equally ridiculous, scientists criticize current scientific theories all the time.  That's where new scientific advances come from.  So again, I agree with the bare-bones statement.  But it's not the dissenting opinion that brings about new advances in science.  It's the scientists who put in the actual scientific work to support their views that end up becoming new advances in science.  Name me one scientific advance that is solely based on having a dissenting view?  There isn't one!  But this sort of statement is typical of the DI.  They are either unwilling or unable to do the real science to support their ideas . . . so they imply that no one is allowed to have a dissenting view, simply because no one takes them seriously because their dissenting view is not based on science, but on theology.

In closing this much longer than intended post, I recall something from a few years back, a quote from the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), in Cambridge UK, also doesn't believe ID to be science. They go even further and say it's also bad religion!

Read this article for yourself, and it contains a link to their actual statement: "Leading science and theology scholars reject 'intelligent design' " I have to quote the article here:

"The concept of intelligent design is, says the report, “neither sound science nor good theology.” The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God’s action as creator – a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call “the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science . . ."

Can Anyone from the Discovery Institute be Considered Objective?

Ann Gauger, the infamous Discovery Institute (DI) Queen of the Green Screen, has a new post on the Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV) site:  "Vincent Torley Thinks I Have Egg on My Face"  She starts off on pretty shaky ground:

"Intelligent design states that there is evidence of design in the universe. I think we are in agreement on this point. In terms of biology, how the designer instantiated that design is still subject to debate, based on the strength of the evidence for each position."

Isn't this a little pat?  I mean Gauger presents Intelligent Design as if it's fait accompli.  One very large and resounding 'No!', we are not in agreement that there is evidence of design in the universe. What we are willing to agree to is that there is only the appearance of design!  Gauger makes it sound as if ID is a foregone conclusion, and maybe to her it is, but to actual working scientists and the majority of the rest of the world, it's nothing more than an attempt to inject religion into science. Biology is not debating how the designer instantiated design, Biology has already dismissed her designer as irrelevant to the study of biology.  It is not subject to scientific debate, only cultural and political debate.  ID is defined as pseudo-science, Annie seems to keep forgetting that.

The rest of her post is supposed to describe how objective she is when she's doing whatever it is she does for the DI.  But when she starts off like she did, is she really capable of objectivity?  She even has the temerity of saying:

"About the data being correct and my questioning it: All scientists are (or should be) taught in graduate school to critically evaluate conclusions."

Yet isn't her whole career at the DI predicated on failing to critically evaluate a very specific conclusion--that of an intelligent designer.  You know, the one the DI dislikes formally naming?  Privately it's the Christian God, but publicly it's the 'intelligent designer'.  So much for 'critical evaluation'.  By the way, isn't that a term the DI likes to toss around, but they don't seem to really mean it.  When they use 'critical evaluation', they mean to denigrate actual science but never seem to enjoy it when anyone actually critically evaluate ID, do they?

The last part of her rebuttal to critics sounds more like an effort to justify the whole Intelligent Design Movement:

" . . .whether it is strongly or weakly supported by the evidence, and whether we are justified in considering alternate explanations."

As usual, DI mouthpieces say things that sound so reasonable.  But when placed within the context of their goals for their religious beliefs . . . it takes on a very different meaning.  Does anyone consider Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation to evolution?  No, Gauger wasn't addressing Intelligent Design in this comment, but to me anything she says has to be examined against that whole premise.  At best ID is an alternative premise, an idea, and one based on religion.  It doesn't have any actual scientific support, so it's not an explanation.  Scientific Theories are explanations -- premises, particularly those driven by religious wishful thinking, are not explanations.

Should we consider ID?  I think we already have, certainly in its current state.  Even Judge Jones, in his Kitzmiller v. Dover et al, said:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."

ID may one day be considered more than pseudo-science, but not until its adherents get off the marketing campaigns and into the lab, and not a green screen version of a lab either!  Until they do that, they will continue to be relegated to the same bookshelf as Tarot Cards, Phrenology, and Astrology -- and justifiable so!

Time for a New Slogan for the Discovery Institute

I'm not being flippant, but I want to ask a serious question.  Does Astrology equal Astronomy?  Are they two sides of one argument?  Should each be given equal weight when looking at the cosmos?  When Astronomers have a conference, should Astrologers be invited, after all it's only fair, right?

Of course you know my answer, and I hope your answer is the same.  Astrology has offered absolutely nothing in the study of the cosmos and to invite them to an Astronomy conference would be ridiculous!  It might be a bit entertaining, but still bordering on ludicrous!  Any Astronomer who invited them as anything but comic relief would probably get a chilly reception from their professional colleagues, and deservedly so!

So why is the Discovery Institute still so fired up about not being allowed to sponsor a table at the United Methodist Church General Conference?  The UMC has made it quite clear their position on Creationism-lite (aka Intelligent Design) and decided in accordance with that position.  And yet with a multitude of posts and even selecting the UMC as their 'Censor of the Year', the DI keeps whining.  The UMC has answered any question -- Creationism, in any form, hasn't offered anything in the way of science, so it doesn't belong in the science classroom!

What I find most telling is the DI isn't telling us why they should be invited, what would they be able to contribute, or what they have contributed that would add value to their addition to the conference.  The ONLY thing they are claiming is that the UMC should allow them to sponsor a table because, according to the DI,  the UMC's slogan is "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.".  Slogans are apparently very important to them.

Anyone ever see a magician do sleight-of-hand?  That's what we are seeing here.  Rather than telling us things that might actually make a difference, the DI is trying to use an appeal to some artificial level of fairness to force the UMC to change their position.  They are distracting us from their lack of actual contributions to anything that does concern the UMC and focusing us on their other hand with a appeal to something that has nothing to do with why they should be invited, a slogan.

I've said it before, if the KKK or NMBLA wanted to sponsor a table, should the UMC allow it?  I mean should everyone be sleeping better knowing the KKK slogan of

"You can sleep tonight knowing the Klan is awake!"(Wikipedia: Ku Klux Klan)

According to the DI they should be permitted, after all "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors", right?

OK, unless something strange happens I am not going to write about this subject, I think it's exhausted.  But I will ask the DI for one simple thing.  Other than the slogan, why should the UMC allow you to sponsor a table?  What can you contribute to their General Conference?  I would like a very specific answer, not some generic piece of fluff about fairness or openness.  What would you contribute?

I guess I do have one final thing to ask, what is the 'slogan' of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture?  The one on your website makes little sense:

"Discovering Intelligent Design" 

I mean depending on which DI mouthpiece you listen too, ID was 'discovered' in 1991 by Phillip E. Johnson or it was 'discovered' by Anaxagoras, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, well over 2000 years ago. In fact they reiterated that one again just yesterday (Excavating the Intellectual Roots of Intelligent Design).  You don't really have to click on their link, it's just one DI talking head repeating what another DI talking head posted last month.  Depending on whom you read, ID is either very new or very old, it all depends on whether or not they want you to think ID is relatively new and that's why they haven't made any serious headway in the sciences -- or -- that ID is ancient and they don't need to make any actual scientific contributions.  Either way what stands out about ID is that has yet to accomplish anything other than marketing.

As a result I think it's time for a new DI slogan. How about:

"The Discovery Institute: How NOT to do science in the 21st Century"

A possible alternative is a play on the KKK's slogan:

"You can sleep tonight knowing the Discovery Institute is doing absolutely nothing!"

Any other suggestions for the Discovery Institute?  Almost anything has to be better than "Discovering Intelligent Design!", I mean the answer to that one is pretty simple, just look up Creationism in the dictionary and there you are.

I missed something in the Discovery Institute's Myth 8

I hate when I do this.  I was checking something in 'Ten Myths About Dover: #8, "Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology" ' and caught a sentence that I guess I missed the first time through.  Here is little casey luskin's last paragraph:

"The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS's definition of a scientific theory, or Michael Behe's definition. The problem with astrology is simple: It's not supported by the evidence. After all, an idea that is "science" or "scientific" can still be flatly wrong."

Look at the second to last sentence:

"The problem with astrology is simple: It's not supported by the evidence."

I can't believe a member of the Discovery Institute (DI) could actually say something like that.  They must have had every irony meter shipped far out of state or else the rest of the world would have heard and felt the explosions.

So, to paraphrase, Astrology isn't science because it is not supported by the evidence, but -- according to the Discovery Institute -- Intelligent Design is science regardless of the fact there is no evidence supporting it.  Marie Antoinette anyone?

Does this mean I disagree with the DI's claims of having evidence?  I certainly do.  Even if you don't look at the religious motivations behind them, what have they shown as evidence?

• The appearance of design
  [Which does not equate to the fact of design]
  
• Examples of human intelligence
  [Which does not equate to their idea of Intelligent Design]
  
• The creation of unsupported concepts like 'irreducible complexity' and 'complex specified information' and then using them as if they had meaning in their rationalizations[It's not enough to create a definition out of thin air, they have to support . . . with evidence . . . that such things actually exist and then try and use them to rationalize ID.  They keep forgetting that step.]
  
• Arguments about the impossibility of evolution
  [Even if these arguments were true, that doesn't mean ID is true.  They present a false dichotomy, sort of if not evolution, then ID.  To be clear, I also disagree with their anti-evolution arguments.]
  
• A Design Inference filter
  [That doesn't seem to be able to infer anything]
  
• Re-writing history
  [Like the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy or trying to re-baptize folks like Alfred Russel Wallace  and Thomas Jefferson as ID proponents.]

What ID comes down to is opinion, wishful thinking, and unsupported conjecture.  What the Intelligent Design Movement comes down to is marketing not science.   It is marketing ID using any tactic available regardless how reprehensible their tactics are -- all for a strictly religious purpose.  What I find more than a little bit galling is when a DI mouthpiece makes ironic statements like this!  No wonder no one outside their religious compatriots takes them very seriously. 

Merry Kitzmas!

I know, not a very original title.  Since Judge Jones' Finding of Fact and Decision Ruling in the Dover Trial was released on 20 Dec 2005, every year one or more websites have used it.  But it certainly fits.  It's been a decade and while this year has been pull of many articles and posts about Dover, it has also been a decade of spin by the Discovery Institute.  I've written about it before, for example: "Does Judge Jones Misunderstand his Critics?"  One of the common points is that since the trial ended and even before the decision was released, the DI has been trying to mitigate the impacts on the Intelligent Design Movement.

It's been a busy month between work and getting ready for the holidays, but I had some time this weekend and hit the DI's Evolution 'News' and Views website (E'N'V).  While they commonly refer to it as a blog, I disagree.  They refuse to allow comments, so I don't consider it a blog.  I also don't consider it a news site, more in the vein of Fox 'Pseudo-news' than anything smattering in actual news.

Today's visit started with something new:

With their belief sets, shouldn't they be asking for help from a different direction?  I have several groups I donate too, but under no circumstances will I consider donating to them.  While I do derive considerable entertainment, I wouldn't consider it any type of investment, like I do MS, Parkinson's, Special Olympics, Vietnam Vets, and my local NPR station.  I feel those groups make positive things happen with my money.

But it does bring something new to mind.  If Intelligent Design hasn't been impacted by Kitzmiller v. Dover et al . . . why are they soliciting for donations?  Aren't their regular donors enough?  Or are some getting a bit disillusioned with the DI's lack of scientific progress?  Just curious?

I bet the opening paragraph about the DI from Wikipedia really must irritate the hell out of them:

"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects (Wikipedia:  Discovery Institute)"

Well enough about that. let's close that pop-up and see what's going on.  I wonder how the DI is celebrating Kitzmas.  Ah, they are 'celebrating' by trying to  . . . again . . . spin the impacts of the Kitzmiller decision.  They started a series of posts about what they are calling '10 Myths about Dover'.  So far they are counting them down and have posted 10 through 8:

• Ten Myths About Dover: #10, "The Intelligent Design Movement Died After the Dover Decision"
•  Ten Myths About Dover: #9, "The ID Movement Had Its Day in Court" 
• Ten Myths About Dover: #8, "Michael Behe Admitted that ID Is No More Scientific than Astrology"

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on their spin because they aren't saying anything new.  They are re-hashing old spins.  I will say a few words about these three:

• Did anyone say the Intelligent Design Movement was dead after Dover?  No, I don't recall anyone saying that.  What I do recall is people saying the support for ID and the political marketing campaign took a serious blow.  Hasn't that been true?  How many public schools have ID on the science curriculum on par with Evolution?  They tried in many places and so far, haven't been very successful.  How many of their 5-year goals have they achieved?  How about none!  And that's not 5-year goals based on the Dover Decision, but 5-year goals set from the founding of the DI's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture . . . which I believe was 1996.  So in reality after 19 years, they haven't achieved any of their 5 year goals, let alone put a dent in their 20 year goals. 
  
• Did ID have it's day in court?  Most certainly.  ID proponents not only testified during the Dover Trial, but their testimony was designed to establish ID's scientific basis.   Based on the results . . . well in the words of Judge Jones:
  

  "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"(Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.)

• Did [ID Proponent] Michael Behe actually say ID was no more scientific than Astrology?  No, he didn't use those exact words, but he wanted a broader definition of science.  The conclusion was that his broader definition would encompass many things including supernatural causation.  When you look at his comments in context, you can see that.  Of course the DI prefers to change the context to suit themselves.  I suggest you read the Dover Trial Transcripts yourself, here is a link to that part of Behe's testimony.  I think it reads very different than the DI's latest spin on it.

What I also find rather funny is that Behe and the other ID proponents tried to present the case that ID is science.  When Judge Jones ruled that it wasn't, one of the more common whines was that Judge Jones didn't have the authority to make such a judgement.  If he didn't have the authority, why present such a case?  Imagine the opposite, suppose Judge Jones had ruled that ID was science, can you imagine the hue and cry if anyone in opposition to ID suggested that Judge Jones overstepped his authority?  Unfortunately, I can imagine it . . . but good sense and the law prevailed.  ID = Creationism and therefore doesn't belong in science class.

I'll probably keep an eye on the next few and see it they try and present anything new.  I doubt it.  Which is mildly surprising.  I mean they've had a decade to hone their arguments and all we seem to get in the same old thing.

Follow-up to "So There is Nothing Religious About Intelligent Design (Part IX)"

As I mentioned earlier in the week, the Discovery Institute, while still claiming to not be a religious organization, is very concerned with young people losing their faith-based beliefs ("Are Young People Losing Their Faith Because of Science?").  They are offering a 'free' report to:

"Download this free report from Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture for information and resources to equip yourself, your family, and your congregation on issues of faith and science." 

Aside from this reminding me of those theists who used to roam the airport giving out a flower or a book and then asking for a monetary contribution . . . anyway . . .

One of the commenters on the Sensuous Curmudgeon blog, where I first caught the DI's report, apparently did download it.  If you remember I wasn't sure what five big truths the DI was going to 'explain' in order to help you counter the myth that belief in God is anti-science.  I did postulate some possibilities, and got a couple of them right.  Here is the list and my responses.  According to 'michaelfugate' they are [my comments follow and are italicized]:

• Christianity is not anti-science. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian worldview helped nurture the scientific revolution.
  This is one of the ones I did predict.  The DI loves to lay claim to such things, but they tend to do quite a bit of cherry picking and only remark with vague generalities.  Partially true, but across history the Judeo-Christian worldview also greatly inhibited science, especially science that disagreed with that worldview.  Can anyone remember how long it took before any part of the Judeo-Christian worldview apologized to Nicholas Copernicus? 500 years?  I guess they might consider it only took 350 years to apologize for what it did to Galileo an improvement.  But you cannot consider that a nurturing environment!  Making this claim doesn't support that belief in God is scientific, only that religious groups can use their belief set in many ways, including ways that do more damage than good.
  
• Even many secular scientists affirm the incredible fine-tuning of the laws of physics that make life possible. We live on a “privileged planet” designed in a multitude of ways for life and for scientific discovery.
  I would love to see their definition of a 'secular scientist' because this is patently untrue.  While real scientists have uncovered the laws of physics, they do not consider the 'fine-tuning' argument persuasive.  This top-down view of the evolution of life and the formation of the universe is much more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.  If you disagree, go out to PubMed and do a search for 'fine-tuned universe', there were six articles, and only two addressed this from a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific one.  The other four used the term 'fine-tuning' in a different context.
  
• Inside our cells are molecular machines of exquisite beauty and complexity that point powerfully to purposeful design.
  This was the other I predicted.  I figured they would try and work in their pet version of Creationism somehow.  While they often make this claim, they have yet to support it.  One of their own 'scientists', Ann Gauger said recently that not only do they not know the process of ID, but that since the Intelligent Agent (what the rest of religions call a Deity) is so far outside of us, we will never know that process.  Other than wishful thinking and conjecture, they not found anything that actually contradicts evolutionary theory.  They offer statements like this as if they are conclusions rather than just more speculation.  To make this claim, they have a great deal of work in front of them -- but so far it seems to be work they are unable or unwilling to do.
  
• Human beings are special and unique in a multitude of ways.
  As compared to what?  Tigers are special and unique in a multitude of ways as well, and in many ways we would fail to measure up.  Humans also share a great many ways with many other species on this planet.  DNA studies, physiology, and studies in comparative anatomy clearly demonstrate that while we might like to think we are unique and special, there isn't all that much evidence to support it. 
  
• Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but it is fallible and can be abused. It is therefore rational (and not “anti-science”) to explore competing scientific explanations, and to scrutinize cultural claims made in the name of science.
  As so goes the lesson in distrusting science that the DI has been pushing for years.  Is science perfect?  No!  But it's the exploration of other scientific theories, it's the validation with experimentation, it's following a methodological approach that makes science work and when science gets things wrong, it is often a self-correcting activity.  But it's not exploring just any ideas and trying to contrasting them with scientific theories that improves science, but actual scientific theories.  While they keep trying to claim it, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and until it's proponents get out of the marketing world and get into the weeds of scientific work, no one within science needs to take them particularly seriously.  By this wording here, every scientific discipline that gets questioned in any way by anybody is supposed to be addressed.  Talk about a complete and total waste of time.  For example do we really need to have Mathematicians spend time addressing Numerology?  How about Astronomers dealing with Astrology?  Archaeologists are going to have to address 'pyramid power' and chase down rumors and stories of ancient astronauts?  Until ID proponents do the actual scientific work to support their idea, real biologists should be focused real science, not trying to justify someone else's religious beliefs. 

This five things aren't 'truths', they are just more examples of the marketing of the Discovery Institute. 

Kirk Pt IV: Scientism!

Kirk's back in his series on how bad science is and why we should just trust in God and forget all this thinking.  I mean where does thinking really lead you?  I guess curing disease, flying, the Internet would have all happened anyway if we had only given up on science and stayed on our knees, right?

Today's topic has the usual philosophical bent, and one he tries to broadly brush all of science in the worst possible way, "The Corrupting Influence of Scientism" is his latest and I think the most entertaining of his posts to date.

First of all what is 'Scientism', and the truth is no one really knows.  Here is a copy from Wikipedia on the many dictionary definitions of Scientism [I numbered them for easier reference]:

1. The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
2. Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
3. An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
4. The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.
5. The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.
6. "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences."
7. "1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

When Kirk uses the term, he is using the 6th definition.  When he says 'Scientism' he is certainly using it in the most derogatory way possible.  This is another post that supports the DI tactic of "Teaching People to Mistrust Science".  The real question is Kirk's definition of 'Scientism' a significant problem?

Wait a minute, Kirk seems to change his definition of 'Scientism'?  In his very first post of this series of his "Should We Have Faith in Science?" he defined scientism as  . . . here, let me quote him:

"As a scientist, I am increasingly appalled and even shocked at what passes for science. It has become a mix of good science, bad science, creative story-telling, science fiction, scientism (atheism dressed up as science), citation-bias, huge media announcements followed by quiet retractions, massaging the data, exaggeration for funding purposes, and outright fraud all rolled up together. In some disciplines, the problem has become so rampant that the "good science" part is drowning in a mess of everything else."

I added the bolding and underlining so you can more easily pick out his comment.  So, in his first in the series, he defines 'scientism' as 'atheism', yet in this post, he changes to definition a bit. . . here, let me quote this definition from his current post:

"Scientism is the belief that science is the best and only trustworthy method to discover truth. Supernatural explanations are a priori ruled out. The result is atheism dressed up as science."

Oh, so now Kirk's problem of 'scientism' is not allowing supernatural explanations in science.  Things are taking a very different turn, isn't it?  Instead of addressing a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge, refusing to allow supernatural explanations is the key to Kirk's complaint, no matter how he tries to dress it up.  Not sure I have things right, here's another quote from Kirk:

"Scientism lobotomizes the quest for knowledge by turning a blind eye to God and the supernatural."

So this whole discussion of 'Scientism' is nothing but a smokescreen Kirk used to hide his religious motivation, let's examine the root of his prejudice.  Don't worry, I'll return to the smokescreen later, but first a few words about why allowing supernatural explanations might be a problem.  While I could get into all sorts of things like philosophical and methodological naturalism, I want to focus on something much simpler and state categorically:  "I will support the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science when  supernatural explanations work!"  I know, if Kirk or his friends at the DI read this, they might quote-mine part of this line and use it to paint me as a theist who wants my science to include the supernatural, wouldn't that be fun!

But seriously, think about it, do supernatural explanations work?  While people like to claim the power of prayer, is it reliable?  Is it repeatable?  Is it even predictable?  Is any supernatural explanation, whether it is ghosts, parapsychology, or Creationism/Intelligent Design useful or even usable?  In a word, No!  If you cannot use it, what good is it in explaining the world around you?  Other than a warm feeling when you think the world aligns with some personal philosophy, it doesn't seem to produce any tangible results!

Look at how successful science is, and has been! Would science be as successful with the inclusion of the supernatural?  Hmmm, let's not forget how long did the supernatural did dominate our explanations of the world around us?  How successful were those explanations?  Not very!  Would expanding the definition of science to include the supernatural actually offer any realistic benefit, other than a warm feeling to people who believe in the supernatural?  That's exactly what Kirk is talking about.  Just like Michael Behe testified about during the Dover Trial.  While he [Behe] tap-danced around it in a variety of ways, in a nutshell he testified that to include Intelligent Design in science, the very definition of a scientific theory would have to be widened to the point where Astrology also being admitted.  That's pretty much what Kirk is asking for here, isn't he?  Scientism = Atheism, so let's add in religion and make science better!  But will it?  Sure doesn't have as good a track record as actual science!

I've asked this question before, but now I would to direct it to Kirk.  Kirk, do you actually put fuel in the fuel tank of your car?  Why do you do that?  You know why, and I know why, it's because of the science -- real usable, predictable, and repeatable science minus any supernatural explanations.  While you might pray when the needle gets close to 'E', it's the activity of putting more fuel in your tank that allows you to continue driving.  If you want to prove to supernatural explanations are just as reliable as natural ones, hop in your car and see how far you get on prayer!

Now, for fun, let's look at Kirk's smokescreen.  But not as defined by Kirk, but let's use definition #3:  "An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities."  Can this be a problem?


It certainly can be!  I'm the first to admit, and I have said it time and time again, scientists are human beings and they are subject to all the perils and foibles that come with being human.  In other words, sometimes they screw up.  The over-application of any philosophy or prejudice can certainly impact any endeavor, even science.  But as I have also said time and time again, science has methodologies that help deal with the possibility to such prejudices affecting outcomes.  In fact now that I think about it, didn't I already discuss this in addressing one of Kirk's earlier posts?  Yes, here it is:

"What's interesting about Science is that is a self-correcting activity.  Think about it, science works, the explanations match the available evidence and when they can no longer do that, they get discarded.  That's the concept of being self-correcting.  When it doesn't work it gets kicked to the curb.  The road to an accepted scientific theory is littered with ideas and explanations that failed at some point.  Some of the possible reasons include Kirk's little diatribe.  When scientists are guilty of anything Kirk doesn't seem to like, their ideas end up among the discarded.  There is a level of actual scientific support required before ideas move forward, something ID proponents can't seem to reach."

So, another question for Kirk.  If we allow supernatural explanations in science, what are the methodologies to determine the success or failure of a supernatural explanation?   I didn't see anything in your post addressing this?  Did I miss something?  While you are a little entertaining, I have seen a common thread in your posts.  You like to whine, but have you offered one suggestion to improve science and scientific methodology?  Letting in the supernatural might give you a warm feeling, but will it improve science?

One last point, and one of my pet peeves, as you probably know.  Why is Kirk trying to throw religion into science and yet the DI, who are posting Kirk's mental meanderings, still insisting there is nothing religious about it?  I know, it should be glue by now, but until the DI comes clean about their motivations, I'll keep beating that dead horse!

Are supporters of Evolution concealing information?

How many times have we heard of the huge conspiracy that Creationism/Intelligent Design are being held back by 'Big Science'.  I remember comments along those line in Ben Stein's abortion "No Intelligence Allowed", I've seen comment after comments online in posts in too many places to list.  Just yesterday I posted about an article on Uncommon Descent that was quite explicit in it's accusation. . . well, here, you read it:

"Darwin’s followers have spent so much time stamping out dissent, they haven’t noticed the looming pile of contrary evidence, let alone done much to address it."(Creationists know more about Evolution?)

Now, when asked for examples of this 'stamping out of dissent', I have yet to get a credible answer from anyone.  Most often you get the stories of Guillermo Gonzales, John Freshwater, or Richard Sternberg . . . of course anyone familiar with any of those cases know they weren't silenced in any form.  Just as a reminder, Gonzalez was denied tenure for failing in his responsibilities, Freshwater was fired for abusing students AND teaching religion instead of science, and the infamous Sternberg Peer Review Controversy.   I hear about the Discovery Institute whining about not being able to be published in credible science journals, but are they actually submitting to those journals? If they were, why would they have to put forth their own journal? 

In any event, I have yet to see any credible evidence that Scientists are trying to silence anything about Creationism/Intelligent Design.  Oh yes, they are trying to keep it from being taught as a scientific theory in science class, just like they would argue against tarot cards and astrology.  But any credible examples or trying to stamp out dissent?  Not a one!

However, is the opposite true?  Here is what happened just this evening:

I have mentioned before that I get news alerts from Google about a number of subjects that I am interested in.  This evening I received this alert:

The link in the article was to: https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2635793/pg1&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTNzUzODM3MDc0OTczNDk0OTg0ODIaYWQ4NjM4ZTJlYTNjYThmYjpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNHINvUHW0ybI4IU01K6ue-7p7CF9A

I clicked on the link and got a page that surprised me.  I was tempted to post a copy of the page, but that would violate the terms of use for that particular website.  So, just let me say when I clicked I ended up at a site that called itself  'Godlike Productions' with a message that said: "Sorry, that message is no longer in the database."

My first instinct was to think the link from Google was bad.  But then I looked at the site.  "Godlike Productions" and decided to dig a touch deeper.  So, I did what anyone would do and did a search on the site for Kenneth Miller.  I figured that should get me to the right place.  The search returned no results.  Hmmmm!

Hmm, now I am more than a little suspicious.  I'm familiar with the Google Alerts after using them for years and found them to be very reliable.  So, just out of curiosity, I search for 'Intelligent Design', still hopeful of  finding the original post, but my hope was much less than my first search effort.  There were a bunch of data returned from that search, but funny, all of it looked like it was favorable to Intelligent Design. Imagine that!

OK, let's recap.  Scientists get accused all the time of suppressing Creationism and Intelligent Design and yet when a website called 'Godlike Productions' apparently published a comment critical to ID and a link to a video by Dr. Kenneth Miller . . .and after a brief period of time, albeit long enough to get picked up by one of Google searches, it disappears completely.  

Anyone else find that more than amusing?  I guess the real question should be does anyone else find this surprising?  I would love to hear some feedback on that!

OMG, Astrology is Science -- well in India at least

I caught this gem from Jen McCreight, who calls her blog 'Blag Hag'. She posted "India: Astrology as Science" and at first I thought it was a joke, like something from The Onion. I mean it certainly sounded like something they would publish. Alas, I'm wrong, now I am reduced to simply hoping it is a joke, but I'm afraid it's not. According to the Bombay High Court in re-affirming a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that Astrology is science and the Supreme Court ruling also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus.

What's worse is that the laws in place to protect consumers by prohibiting misleading advertisements relating to drugs and magic remedies does not apply because Astrology, and related things like Palmistry, are sciences, therefore not magic and the laws do not apply. Poor India!

To echo Jen's final comment:

"And I thought it was just the creationists who used this tactic . . ."

Damned by their own words

I have said a number of times that the best way for people to understand the paucity of the Creationist pseudo-science, be it Creationism or Intelligent Design, is not to try and silence Creationists, but to let them talk. They do much more damage to their own position than damn near anything I could possibly say.

Apparently Michael Zimmerman agrees with me. His latest post on the Huffington Post "Creationists Destroy Creationism with Their Own Words" is just poetry. The one that got me was the copy from the Centre for intelligent Design (CID), the low-rent British version of the Discovery Institute, who actually posted:

"In one sense, research work that supports ID is not the central issue. ID is
essentially an interpretation of the data that already exists. There is not much
point in gathering more information if you already have enough on which to base
your hypothesis."

Are they kidding? Here is my problem. A scientific theory is not just an idea. It is an explanation based on a great deal of information and study including experimentation, observation, and huge mounds of evidence. Unbelieveable amounts of time, energy, and manpower goes into each one. The CID is suggesting that a little re-interpretation of the existing data could arrive at an equally compelling explanation. I disagree! If the data resulted in more than one compelling explanation then the explanation would never reach the level of a Scientific Theory. The reason a hypothesis becomes a theory is because it is the most compelling, by an incredibly wide margin, explanation of the available evidence.

Do you see what I am trying to say? If there was an alternative scientific explanation then Evolution would not be the theory that it is today. It couldn't get there because an equally compelling explanation could not be dismissed. Based on my understanding of scientific methodology, the CID is wrong. If they want ID to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, they are going to have to do a great deal more than 're-interpret'.

And so I guess they are! What I find amusing is thinking back to the Dover trial and reading the transcripts of the cross-examination of Michael Behe and the basic definition of science and how in order for ID to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be changed. that change would open science to things like Astrology! In a second quote from the CID website, this one from a video of the Director (Please see my discussion of him in "So there is nothing religious about ID Part III") who said

" . . . criticise the "strident strain of science" that says the only acceptable
explanations are those depending on "physical and materialistic processes"

So let me get this straight, ID is science because we already have all the data we need, we just need to re-interpret it a little . . . yet at the same time we need to make a wholesale change in the very definition of science? Anyone else see Marie Antoinette in the room?

Two staff members of AnswersInGenesis make is pretty clear, as Michael quoted as well,

"The biblical creationist takes the Bible as the ultimate standard . . ."

I guess all doubt on the scientific viability and even the need to re-interpret based on existing data is gone. Everything is based on the ultimate standard! So I guess we need to crank up the presses, because the only text book needed is the Christian Bible. It's not only a book about God, it's a history book -- just history ended about 2000 years ago. It's also an Astronomy text, but then again any study of Astronomy was done well before the invention of a telescope, let alone a radio telescope. Any medical advances in the past 2000 years need to be tossed aside because the Bible is the ultimate medical authority as well! Now I think even Marie would be choking on her cake.

Michael's point, and one I agree with is that we are not trying to silence Creationists. We love listening to them and pointing out the many hilarious, erroneous, and sometimes completely idiotic things they say. My only point, and one that I think Michael agrees -- he can certainly correct me if I am putting words in his mouth -- is that we don't want to silence anyone, but we do want them to speak the truth and the truth is Intelligent Design is not science and keeping it out of the public school science classroom is not an issue of free speech, or even an effort to silence them -- it's an exercise in honesty and truth!

PS -- when you go to Michael's post, check out the comments as well.

That didn't take long UK Intelligent Design meet US Intelligent Design

It was just this past Sunday that I posted about us exporting the foolishness colloquially known as Intelligent Design to Great Britain ("It's about time we got even"). As I said there the link to the Discovery Institute might not be official, but the DI was trumpeting like it was an actual victory. Well it's more than a philosophical link now. The UK-based Centre for Intelligent Design has just announced a fall lecture tour featuring Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Michael Behe.

The press release is from the Discovery Institute, so lies, exaggerations, and distortions are a matter of course. So when they say "Controversial ID Scientist tours the UK" are they really serious? Let's see -- this is the man whose own organization, Lehigh University, does not agree with his hobby horse. This is a man who under oath admitted that no one was doing the scientific work needed to support his own ideas. This is the man who stated that in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to the point of making Astrology a science . . . get the idea? Michael Behe will do for Intelligent Design in the UK what he's done for it in the US -- damn near nothing at all!

I mean, really is he so controversial? I think by now even the DI would question his ability to help their cause. I will say one thing about Behe is at least he had the intestinal fortitude to stick to his beliefs and testify during the Dover Trial -- unlike other members of the DI. But as a controversial figure he rates pretty low on the scale.

Just as a reminder, here is what Lehigh University says about Intelligent Design:

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Here is another exaggeration of the DI. When Michael Behe is stumping for the DI and waxing poetic on Intelligent Design, is he acting within his scientist persona?

It's something to think about. I mean if my dentist discusses the cyst I have on my back, he's not being a dentist, right? When the butcher offers portfolio advice, he's not acting as a butcher. Are my dentist and butcher free to offer an opinion on something other than their specialty? They certainly are -- but when they do so they are acting outside of their professional persona. Of course no one would take my butcher seriously if I identified him as the source of my stock advice!

However, when Behe speaks, the DI is quick to cloak him in his scientist cape -- but should it? Lehigh University says Intelligent Design has no basis in science, so calling anyone an 'ID Scientist' really has little to no meaning! Yes, Behe is a scientist when he is teaching and working in Biochemistry -- but Behe himself is not doing the work to support his own ideas (by his own admission). He's not being a scientist when he writes and speaks about Intelligent Design.

Yet, according to the Discovery Institute Michael Behe is a 'Controversial ID Scientist'. At the very least the DI is overstating the case -- at the very worst they are doing nothing but smoke and mirrors to catch some of the glint over having an actual biochemist selling their snake oil. But that's pretty typical for the Discovery Institute.

Intelligent Design: For Entertainment Purposes Only!

I believe that John G. West, yes, that one, from the Discovery Institute (DI), has this form letter and all he has to do is fill in the name of any biologist/journalist/scientist, add a link to their article, and then have it posted on his website. Here check out "A Biologist Misunderstands Intelligent Design (Again)" if you wish, but if you have read any of the standard "They just don't understand ID" posts, you already know what it says. He even acknowledges it with his "(Again)" in the title. If it is so common, Johnny, why don't you get off your butt and publish some valid science that supports ID. then no one could mis-understand it. But that seems to be out of the question.



So what we see yet another biologist, this time Dr. Kathryn Applegate, affiliated with the Biologos Forum, being critical of intelligent design in her article "Self-Assembly of the Bacterial Flagellum: No Intelligence Required" and instead of actually addressing the shortfalls in intelligent design or the details of her critique, he would rather question the biologist's knowledge of ID. In all honesty how much do she need to know? I'm not being flippant, but if you read her article she goes through and explains how the bacterial flagellum, one of Michael Behe's poster children for irreducible complexity, forms through a natural process. ID proponents claim otherwise, including Behe's who's books she references.



So one side claims God-Did-It -- without naming the designer -- and Kathryn Applegate says not so fast. She supports her position with a nicely done explanation, so what's an ID proponent to do? Attack her understanding of ID -- something she doesn't really need to present the natural process by which bacterial flagellum form. Did he address the process she described? Did he address the experiments that developed her understanding of the process? Did he make a case for how the 'Designer' did it? No, that would be too much like work.



So apparently here are the rules -- post something positive about Intelligent Design or the DI will fill out West's 'form' letter and claim you don't understand Intelligent Design. It doesn't really matter what you say, if you aren't an ID proponent, then you must not understand ID. Makes perfect sense . . . in their delusional world.

I think Dr. Applegate understand all she needs to about ID. She doesn't need to read more material about it because it doesn't really matter. Anything she says that is critical will get the same response. Rather than educate, Johnny and his cronies would rather condemn. The entire world has been waiting for the DI to produce anything other than popular press books and articles -- books and articles that show an ever changing concept of what ID is supposed to be. It's like hitting a moving target and unless you kneel before the DI and proclaim their 'Designer' to be the end all of scientific knowledge, they will complain that you really don't understand it. So in other words over 99% of the biologists and scientists in the world all misunderstand the DI and their pet concept, Creationism's little brother. I think Johnny has been hanging around with his cronies too long and needs to get out more for some perspective. I thought the low was when Casey Luskin took on a Canadian Quilter about her award winning quilt "Myths of our time: Intelligent Design", but West hit a new low with his non-critique



I do love how he sneaks in the term "intelligent design theorist", as if they actual had a theory to study. So now they are creating what . . . job titles for imaginary positions? At best he should call them 'intelligent design conceptualizers' or in a fit of self-examination he could call them 'marketeers', but that level of honesty is too much to expect. I guess that would make Dr. Applegate an 'anti-ID theorist' and I am sure that is a title she would wear proudly!



Hmmm . . . so I guess that makes me . . . what exactly? An Anti-ID Blogger? Not really, but I doubt Johnny would understand. I am not against ID, I am not even anti-creationism -- as theology and philosophy. I am against anyone, or any group, who make scientific claims without having done the work. I am against anyone who uses disreputable tactics, lies, and misrepresentations of science in order to garner support for their personal religious beliefs.

If the DI would simply do the work and actually support their contentions with something resembling facts, I would be lobbying for their inclusion in science class. But they seem to be unwilling, or unable, to do so. As long as they remain unwilling or unable, then I will argue that they belong on the same shelf in the bookstore as Astrology, Phrenology, the Psychic Friends Network, and Tarot Cards. Just like the small print disclaimer on those psychic infomercials of a few years back, Intelligent Design is "For Entertainment Purposes Only!"

Luskin wiffs again . . . and again . . . and again.

Over on The Skeptical Teacher blog is a terrific article, but I just wish Matt hadn't had to go through listening to Casey Luskin to write it. I mean there had to have been something better to do like clipping toenails, weeding, or smashing your own fingers with a hammer. In other words Matt is braver than I. I'm not sure I could listen to Luskin with a straight face.

OK, well here is a link to "My Thoughts on Attending Casey Luskin’s Intelligent Design Talk at the University Club of Chicago". The title is kinda long, and so is the post -- but it's a great read.

Luskin seems to be the point man for testing out new tactics. I mean who better than a lawyer to play word games. He explains his role as someone who can help teachers teach evolution "more objectively". Anyone else see this as nothing more than an extension of the 'teach the controversy', teach all sides', 'free speech' and 'academic freedom' tactics. What Matt says, and I agree is that they are searching for the right phrase that will allow them to slip their pseudo-science under the radar. But no much how much mayo you use, pseudo-science is still pseudo-science.

Luskin then stays true to the Discovery Institute script and alludes to ID proponents being discriminated against or censored. I almost wish it were true, but it is nothing but another tactic. Let me put it this way, along the same way Matt put it, is it censorship or discrimination to teach Astrology in an Astronomy class? No! Teaching a non-science viewpoint is not being discriminatory or censoring anyone. You do not teach English in Math class, why would you teach theology in science class? You wouldn't and, more importantly, you shouldn't!

Little casey also tries to make the claim that ID is being distorted by the media and that simply because of their unwillingness to name the designer, they should be accepted as science. Uh . . . didn't Phillip E. Johnson name the designer? Didn't Michael Behe? Didn't Bruce Chapman? Yes, but since they did not do it 'officially' it's O.K. to claim that they haven't identified the designer. It certainly didn't stop them from saying so in the "Wedge Document". It sure didn't stop a Federal Court from calling it Creationism by any other name in the Dover Trial.

Casey also knows well how to LIE! Apparently he also referenced a paper by Stephen C. Meyer that was central to the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy. Of course, does Luskin mention that the peer-reviewed paper he just referenced was pulled because it did not go through an actual peer review? No, that would be something called honesty. Something I am not sure Luskin understands.

He then goes on to do more mis-direction and keeps trying to tie known man-made objects as a comparison to so-called designer-done. This argument has been tried over and over again and it doesn't work for one very simply reason, the appearance of design is not proof of design! I bet Casey never actually reads a book, he just looks at the covers and calls himself an expert on the contents.

I really like Matt's Test for Design Inference:

1. Take two sets of a dozen drinking glasses.

2. Drop one set from a significant height into a clear plastic box so that they smash apart into a random jumble of broken glass at the bottom of the box. This is the “naturally caused” pile of broken glass.

3. Take the second set of glasses and break them up with a hammer or whatnot in a very specific manner and then place the pieces into the bottom of a second box so that the pile of broken glass appears random. This will be the “intelligently designed” pile of broken glass.

4. Do all of this out of view of the ID-proponents (the test must be blinded), and then ask them to apply their method to identify the “naturally caused” pile from the “intelligently designed” pile. Of course, the entire procedure would have to be performed many times to get a correct read on the statistics.

5. If there really is something to the ID method of “inferring design”, then the ID-proponents should be able to determine correctly the “intelligently designed” piles of glass at a rate significantly higher than chance (well over 50%).

The fact that I’ve never seen any ID-proponent perform, or even seriously suggest, such a blinded test of their design inference methods speaks volumes, folks. And remember: they’ve been at this for 20 YEARS!

He . . . OH I have had enough. Please read the article, it is great, especially Matt's comments. Luskin does no more than the normal parroting the DI party line and adds nothing new. of course he fails to mention many things like how ID has added nothing to science, or how "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" have absolutely no support. He even manages to quote-mine Richard Dawkins for God's sake. I really don't see how Matt put up with it. Casey Luskin is a mouthpiece and not a very effective one, he apparently had a real hard time addressing any actual questions and got frustrated at some point and did a standard attack on Judge Jones, the judge in the Dover Trial.

Nothing new, but Matt's takedowns are well worth the read!

Casey Strikes out

More out of curiosity than anything else, I read through the rest of Casey Luskin's paper on various court cases (already blogged about it in general here Luskin's Turn). I was really curious how he commented on the Dover Court Case.

He opens with a summary that is actually a pretty good summary. But as he dove into his commentary, I think he missed a point. One of the factors that he missed completely is when the court examined what an impartial observer would take from the disclaimer the School Board wanted read. He completely ignored that part of the trial that determined that a typical student would hear the disclaimer and take it as an indictment against the Theory of Evolution.

I also think Casey missed the boat with his own disclaimer trying to absolve the Discovery Institute of their involvement. Yes, when it reached a point of Trial, the DI backpedaled with the best of them and tried to dissuade the School Board from their action. But up until that point they were involved, and advised, and provided the text book 'Of Pandas and People" that was so central to the case. Lauri Lebo made an interesting point in her book "The Devil in Dover" that during the trial the school board members seemed to be waiting for support from the DI that never materialized. The DI did the same thing with the school teacher/soccer coach in Tejon CA. After the suit was filed they claimed to have advised them to settle. But how much pushing and coaching did the teacher received before that point? We will never know because it didn't actually come to trial, but I believe the DI was one of the sources for the videos supporting ID that she was planning on showing.

Now I always thought Casey was a lawyer, well he must be out of practice because I see nothing wrong with the Court setting up their ruling as a primer for other Courts. They did it

" . . . in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us."

So apparently Casey would prefer to be able to hold this trial over and over again. Talk about a waste! You know when the outcome would be different? If those sluggards over at the DI would get off their collective butts and try and do some actual science. I mean look at it, a Federal Judge, a Conservative Federal Judge could not rule in their favor! A Judge so conservative that many people thought the trial was a slam dunk -- until it actually got underway. If they can't win in that courtroom, where could they win? So the Judge making a sweeping decision that went beyond the bounds of the immediate case is perfectly reasonable. in fact many cases are so decided in order to do exactly what Judge Jones tried to do -- set a precedent other Courts can look to for guidance. That's part of the whole judicial process!

But in reality, I bet Casey and his friends would love this to be tried in school districts across the country. Sooner or later the odds would grant them at least a temporary victory and they would just go insane! However Courts have been forever making their rulings with an eye towards the future. the case may not be binding outside of the small Pennsylvania area, but it's impact has been felt across the country. That is what Casey and his pals do not like!

Here is one of the funny things to me. If the Judge had ruled that ID was science, would Casey and his cohorts have been complaining about a lack of judicial restraint? Oh Hell No! They would have been crowing like roosters! Instead they have to attack a conservative judge and accuse him of a lack of judicial restraint and judicial activism mainly because they got their collective butts handed to them.

I love this quote of Casey's:

"The judicial over-reach and activist, policy-making intentions of the judge may cause other courts to question whether the Kitzmiller ruling represents carefully considered legal work."

Of course he never answers this question, he just tried to raise it as a doubt and then just walks away. Does he support this comment? No! Does he offer evidence that other courts are not going to consider this case? No! He simply tries to cast a shadow of doubt and then leaves you hanging. This a a common gambit to raise doubt in a readers mind where there really isn't any.

Here is another one:

"Another aspect of the Kitzmiller ruling that may cause jurists to doubt its persuasiveness is the fact that over 90% of its celebrated section on whether ID is science was copied verbatim or nearly-verbatim from the plaintiffs’ “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,” proposed by attorneys working with the ACLU.277 While there is no question that courts are permitted to draw upon such documents when constructing rulings and that such behavior does not constitute any kind of unethical “plagiarism,” case law suggests that large-scale judicial copying is highly disapproved of by courts,278 even when the extent of the copying does not provide grounds to overrule the lower court."

OK, this one circulated quite soon after the ruling was published. Judge Jone did copy a great deal of information form the plaintiffs findings of facts. However, there is nothing wrong in this. But look at Casey's wording: "may cause", "verbatim or nearly-verbatim", "While there is no question that courts are permitted to draw", "unethical 'plagiarism' ", and "suggests". How mealy mouthed can one lawyer get? Without coming out and saying it he, and the others at the DI, didn't like that the judge used the winners documents as a basis for the ruling. I do love the slipped in 'nearly-verbatim' line. So if you use words that are similar and mean the same thing, are you being 'nearly-verbatim'? Only a lawyer can tell you -- but be prepared for a long confusing session.

Casey also thinks, and I use that word loosely, that

"The Kitzmiller ruling was predicated upon a false definition of intelligent design."

I have to disagree. The definition before the Court was the presented by both Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Even though the DI didn't like the caveats they had to use under cross-examination, it was pretty clear that ID involves supernatural causation, even if the official definition of the DI doesn't use those terms, they were clearly evident in the trial transcript. Here is a quote from Judge Jones' ruling with appropriate references made by the defense witnesses:

" . . . defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich))."

This article, at least specifically where Casey discusses the Dover Trial. does not represent an objective look at the trial and how a teacher, lawyer, or other policy maker should see it. It represents a very specific spin on the trial that is not represented in the ruling nor the results of the ruling. Over 3 years since the trial and Casey and his buds are still trying to spin things their way.

5 years later

Doing my usual wandering around the web, I frequently check out PZ Myers 'Pharyngula' blog and am rarely disappointed. Today was certainly no exception. He linked to an article published 5 years ago. An interview with several Intelligent Design proponents, including Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Paul Nelson. I had seen excerpts of some of the comments before, but I hadn't read the whole article.

PZ focused his comments on one question in his blog post "Put your affairs in order, biologists. Your time is nigh!" That question was "Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?" Of course Dembski predicted the demise of evolution. Nelson was actually a little better claiming the biggest challenge is "to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design." Well in the past 5 years we have yet to see any sign of crumbling in evolutionary theory, we also have yet to see any sign of an actual 'Theory of Biological Design." I was also struck by the fact Nelson didn't include the word 'Intelligent' in his response. I was also interested in the rest of the article and here are a few things that struck me.

Johnson immediate brought up the whole 'prejudice' line in his first comment. How A.E. Wilder-Smith and and Michael Denton were "brilliant men were noticed to some degree, but prejudice prevented their ever gaining a fair hearing." AE Wilder Smith was one of the people pushing the dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River. You know, the ones found to be doctored and carved. So it's 'prejudice' to expose a fake? Denton seems to have changed his mind. In 1998 he published his second book, Nature's Destiny, which appears to assume evolution as a given. He no longer openly associates with the Discovery Institute and they no longer lists him as a fellow. Funny, this interview was in 2004, yet Johnson makes no mention of Denton's 1998 work. But he does adhere to the party line, claiming prejudice and discrimination as the reasons why Intelligent Design can't seem to get off the dime. Interesting how it doesn't stop real scientists, but it does seem to be a major roadblock to the pseudo-scientists.

Johnson's next comment just killed me "Freud, Marx, and Darwin were all revered as major scientific heroes throughout the twentieth century. Of the three, only Darwin retains any scientific standing."

First of all, Sigmund Freud has no scientific standing? Since when? Granted some of his ideas have been superseded by recent work, but the Father of the psychoanalytic school of psychology still has a great deal of standing. Like Newton and Darwin, his work only went so far. People kept taking it expanding it in many areas and even replacing it in others.

Now Karl Marx, revered? At least that is the Marx I think Johnson was referring to. I doubt it was Groucho, Chico, Harpo, or Zeppo (or the lesser known Gummo -- yes, Gummo, look it up). First of all while I recall studying up on Marx a bit, I would never put him in the same class as Freud or Darwin. In his own lifetime his was a relative unknown. I think this is the first time I have seen those three names linked in such a fashion, but it also plays to the Discovery Institute party line of linking Darwin with Hitler, eugenics, and racism. Why not communism?

Another question was "What are the implications for morality of Darwinism and intelligent design?" To which Johnson replied: "The fundamental issue is whether God is real or imaginary. An imaginary God has no moral authority. Intelligent design is bitterly resisted because it threatens to allow God to re-enter the realm of reality as the object of public knowledge."

This is a mis-characterization, to say the least. The reason Intelligent Design is contested is simply the precise reason mentioned by Nelson. There is no theory supporting it. There is no work, no evidence, no explanations that can be taught as science! Until that happens it deserves to remain lumped in with Astrology and the other wanna-be sciences. The fact ID is so tightly woven with God and Creationism is mainly because of Johnson's own words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy):

• "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind."
• "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
• "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
• "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."
  

So, in other words, Johnson is still trying to remove the specter of 'God' from Intelligent Design and he has failed. Without an 'Intelligent Designer' his ideas have no place to go. Here we are 5 years after this interview and Intelligent Design still has no theory, it has no support other than some degree of popular support. Even though the Discovery Institute opened its own lab, there is still no theory. For all it's marketing, which this interview is certainly a part of, there is still nothing to teach other than as a failed philosophy. There is nothing to present to science. My expectation is there never will be because rather than just buckle down and do the science, they are spending all their time marketing.

OK, enough from me. Go see the article for yourself and enjoy. There is so much more to read there. I have only scratched the surface. Here are a few phrases that caught my eye:

• [ID's] main importance is cultural
• People’s intuitions will continue to lead them to see the design in biology
• More than half of the work of the ID community is still directed to pointing out the problems with Darwinism
• biologists even now freely employ the concept of design, saving themselves from charges of heresy by arbitrarily attributing the design to natural selection. [huh?]
• [Dembski actually said this] Natural selection acting on randomly varying replicators is fruitful and certainly a factor in biology

There you go, please read it., laugh at the funny parts and think how much of this will change int he next 5 years.

I honestly believe ID proponents would rather cry "Prejudice" than "Eureka!"